Slashdot Mirror


Canada Says No To DMCA

P Starrson writes " The Canadian government has reportedly said no to the DMCA. It released its plans for copyright reform today with a limited anti-circumvention provision that would not cover the likes of DeCSS. It even avoided the U.S. "notice and takedown system" that has caused a big headache for U.S. ISPs. A good summary is available from Canadian law professor Michael Geist. "

124 of 590 comments (clear)

  1. Good step? by LegendOfLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, why can't the US government learn to keep their noses out of every aspect in our lives?!

    1. Re:Good step? by wankledot · · Score: 3, Insightful
      OK, I'll bite.

      The DMCA was not designed to put the government's nose into every aspect of your life. I was designed by content providers/creators to help them enforce their perceived rights as copyright owners in the face of what they saw as an attack.

      It's not The Big Bad Government trying to nose its way into our lives, it's one group of people (content providers/owners) trying to make sure that what they perceive as their best interests are protected through the law.

      That doesn't make it right of course, but you should really direct your ire at the right people, it's much more constructive.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    2. Re:Good step? by Hachey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because they are the government. Asking the government not to be nosey is like asking a dog not to pee on the rug. Even after so many times saying 'no', when your back is turned **look!** they've gone and done it again! Bad dog!

      Repeat. Ad nausem.


      -----
      Check out the Uncyclopedia.org [uncyclopedia.org] , the only wiki source for not-semi-kinda-untruth about things like Kitten Huffing [uncyclopedia.org] and Pong! the Movie [uncyclopedia.org]!

      --
      Please allow me to hate the creator of the 120-character limit: *HATES*. Thank you.
    3. Re:Good step? by LegendOfLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but that one group of people used their money and influence to persuade legislators to make a law to benefit them.

      Last time I checked, I thought the government was supposed to preserve fundamental Constitutional rights, not pass a new law when some lawmaker has to take care of those who donated to their campaigns.

      Simply put, people will try to do things to put themselves at the top, but it's the governments fault for allowing itself to be manipulated.

      I think Thomas Jefferson would be crying right now ;)

    4. Re:Good step? by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's not The Big Bad Government trying to nose its way into our lives, it's one group of people (content providers/owners) trying to make sure that what they perceive as their best interests are protected through the law.
      Huh? I doubt you could name any policy of any government, ever, that wasn't about "somebody" who wanted "something." That in itself isn't a justification.

      If you assume somebody is being evil just for the sake of being evil, it's more likely their motive is selfish and you just don't know yet what they're trying to get. That doesn't mean they're not evil.

    5. Re:Good step? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Simply put, people will try to do things to put themselves at the top, but it's the governments fault for allowing itself to be manipulated.

      I disagree. The government is being manipulated. It's being bought off.

      It's the people who are being manipulated. The power of the US government comes from the people. What's baffling is that it's okay with the people (as evidence by who they vote into office) to allow their government to overstep it's authority and allow their rights to be eroded.

      I think Thomas Jefferson would be crying right now ;)

      I think, if Jefferson were alive, he would be too busy trying to deal with all speculation about what he'd do in different circumstances.

    6. Re:Good step? by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...but it's the governments fault for allowing itself to be manipulated.

      Correction! Replace "government" with "voter"... please! While you're at it, replace "itself" with "themselves". Then you will have an irrefutable statement.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:Good step? by BobSutan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think Thomas Jefferson would be crying right now ;)
      You jest, but in reality he'd probably be in prison, or worse Gitmo, held as an enemy of the State for trying to usurp the federal government.
      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    8. Re:Good step? by Sentry21 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The DMCA was not designed to put the government's nose into every aspect of your life. I was designed by content providers/creators...

      First the DMCA takes away our rights, and now it's posting on slashdot! Will the tyranny ever end?!

    9. Re:Good step? by wankledot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I never said it (the law, or the way it was enacted) was right, but screaming about "the government" takes the focus away from the people that are actually pushing for the laws.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    10. Re:Good step? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, maybe Mexico will follow Canada's lead, so we can say, "Two out of three ain't bad."

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    11. Re:Good step? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "It's the governments fault for allowing itself to be manipulated."

      The only workable cure I see to reduce the effectiveness of manipulation is an informed populace. Frankly I don't see it happening. As has been demonstrated time and time again, if you have enough money and friends you can make who you want look good and who you don't want look bad irrespective of the actual facts. Oh there are limits, but I'm not convinced those limits are not in fact widening. Terry Goodkind wrote a series of books, that while not especially remarkable, did point out some rather universal truths. When people stop listening to reason and instead blindly follow their hearts they can be manipulated. For that matter Herman Goering of Nazi Germany said it about as well as any when he said, "Of course, the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same way in any country."

      While his particular comment was more about war, it seems to work in general as well. What quite frankly amazes me is Canada doesn't seem to fall into the same trap. Maybe after I sell some property I'll move there one day.

    12. Re:Good step? by computer_redneck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They havent caught up to me yet. I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said that the country needs a good revolution every 10 years or so.
      Shake up the political system.
      To bad he was right about teaching our kids as well. Seems out schools are declining and so is the ability of our people to make informed descisions during election time.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
    13. Re:Good step? by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not just the US government, it's EVERY government. Some government are more intrusive into the social aspects of our lives, others into the economic aspects of our lives, but I have yet to encounter any government that was content to simply mind its own business.

      Apropos the article, while the DMCA is pretty intrusive all by itself, EVERY industrialized nation has copyright laws that intrude heavily into the informational aspects of our lives. No exceptions. I don't care if it's an inch or a foot, I don't want that camel's nose in my tent at all!

      This news should be cause to praise Canada, and not to bash the US. Canada might now have a tiny shiny spot on its pot, but that pot is still pretty damned black to be pointing out kettles with.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    14. Re:Good step? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I am throwing away my mod points in this post to reply. Exactly _how_ do you come up with the notion that it is the voters fault? If I only get to vote between a Dem or Rep Congress critter, exactly how can I win as a voter? Both are going to take bribes and vote for laws that they received the most bribes on. Is there one member of Congress or Senator that did not accept one bribe in 2004?

      So exactly how can we as voters have any influence? Voting doesn't work anymore. Our "representivite democracy" doesn't represent the common person anymore. The only way to get something done in the government is to have millions of dollars in bribe money.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    15. Re:Good step? by mrbcs · · Score: 2, Informative
      You obviously don't live here. We're so disgusted with the crooked politicians and Quebec always voting in francophone Prime ministers, that we've given up all hope of anything changing.

      We used to just hope to be assimilated into America but lately the Americans are scaring the shit out of us. Patriot Act, DMCA, etc..

      This current minority Government probably won't make the summer so this issue may die with an election call.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    16. Re:Good step? by ErikZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's only a problem as the government gains more more power. Work towards a smaller government and it becomes less important as to who's in charge and what they're doing.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    17. Re:Good step? by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Voting does not work because voters don't take it seriously. If 80% of eligible Americans voted, and they did plenty of research ahead of time to see who would best serve their interests, corporate lobbyists would lose all their power. Campaign funds can make a candidate widely known, but only votes can put them in office. The problem is, people for the most part don't really care enough about their government to change it. As long as their lives are generally OK, they're not going to be voting in record numbers. If more people voted, and voted on important issues as opposed to who says they're going to give them more free stuff, Democrats and Republicans would no longer be able to get away with being the same, unless they really offered what most people truly wanted.

    18. Re:Good step? by mrbcs · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Quebec votes for a sepratist provincial gov't, which is right wing, then votes for a left wing federal government that promises them the most cash. They love to screw the country that way. Ontario is just stuipid. (I live there) Bunch of dumb-ass people believing lies, then crying when the liberals they vote in break 250 some odd promises in the first year. (provincially) Then the dummies give them a 52% approval rating? This whole country is brain dead.

      Quebec is the pox on Canada. They are probably the largest have-not province in the country. They take more than they give then always complain that they don't have enough power. The next time they talk about separating we should all vote em off the country. Take yer bat and ball and piss off. They'd be begging to be back in Canada in a week like a spoiled teeneager. Good Riddance.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    19. Re:Good step? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If more people voted, and voted on important issues as opposed to who says they're going to give them more free stuff, Democrats and Republicans would no longer be able to get away with being the same

      How many times is this statement going to get a +5 on slashdot?

      Are Democrats and Republicans automatically the same because your pet issue (copyright) isn't at the top of the national agenda?

      How can you say they are the same when you look at the respective issues on abortion, the war in Iraq, progressive taxation, social security reform, election reform, capital punishment, environmental policy, church/state separation, etc. etc.?

      If you feel a little bit bitter because of the DCMA, then perhaps you should put the blame at the feet of the lobbyists and ill informed Congress-critters on both sides of the aisle (not to mention the ill informed executive that signed it). To say that Democrats and Republicans are the same is an insult to people on both sides of the aisle.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  2. I love to be Canadian! by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 4, Funny

    1-0 for me being Canadian.

    Emigrate. It`s not too late!

    1. Re:I love to be Canadian! by Drakonian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are a lot of joke replies in this thread, but can we clarify something first? The news is not that positive! It's not AS BAD as the DMCA but there are still a lot of restrictions that Slashdotters would disagree with. E.g. Circumventing DRM to make private copies of sound recordings would become illegal. So for example, I can't use Hymn to strip the DRM off my iTMS songs and store them on a backup CD incase iTMS/Apple ever ceases to provide service.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    2. Re:I love to be Canadian! by dan+of+the+north · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Circumventing DRM to make private copies of sound recordings would become illegal."

      Is that what this means? - "It would not be legal to circumvent, without authorization, a TPM applied to a sound recording, notwithstanding the exception for private copying."
      Source (Government Statement on Proposals for Copyright Reform)

  3. Freedom! by Janitha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good to see the Canada being more realistic and more free about stuff like this.

    1. Re:Freedom! by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's the free weed. We just wanna chill, mon, and be getting on with the groovin, and you can't be chillin and groovin if you can't download stuff for free.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    2. Re:Freedom! by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, it's more fun if they prosecute while stoned. "Your honor, I request a brief munchie break."

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
  4. *cough*EXPATRIATION*cough* by Khakionion · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry, I had a little something in my throat.

    --
    OMG! Wau!
    1. Re:*cough*EXPATRIATION*cough* by Idarubicin · · Score: 5, Funny
      *cough*EXPATRIATION*cough*

      Sorry, I had a little something in my throat.

      I believe the word you're looking for is expectoration, then.
      --
      ~Idarubicin
  5. Redeem us from bad press by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hopefully that'll redeem Canada from all the recent bad press it got on Slashdot!

    1. Re:Redeem us from bad press by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hopefully that'll redeem Canada from all the recent bad press it got on Slashdot!

      What are you talking about? Slashdot and its readership are primarally American. As far as I'm concerned, if they don't like how we're running things up here, that's a sign that we're doing things right :P

      Give it time... between this, the marijuana-reform legislation and the gay and lesbian marriges we'll be part of the Axis of Evil in no time, and they'll start contemplating dropping nuclear-waste-I-mean-bunker-buster-bombs on us too.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    2. Re:Redeem us from bad press by ikkonoishi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't tempt US.

  6. w00t! by deadhammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go us! Now the question on everybody's mind up here is: with our refusal to put our official support behind the missile defense program and now this, how long before the border closes up completely?

    --
    I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
  7. Walk this way... by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 4, Funny

    Canada says no to DMC, eh?

    Is hip-hop not popular over there or something?

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    1. Re:Walk this way... by wankledot · · Score: 2, Informative
      Tom Green (the comedian) was nominated for a Juno (.ca Grammy) for best hiphop album.

      That should answer your question.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    2. Re:Walk this way... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Funny

      As for the popularity of hip-hop in Canada, it is actually very popular with the African Canadian community...all 1 of them.

      What are you talking about? There are TONS of African-Canadians up here. Most of them are decended from ppl who escaped slavery in the US on the underground railway, as a matter of fact.

      And Hip-Hop is also very popular amongst bored white upper-middle-class teenaged preppy gangster-wannabes.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    3. Re:Walk this way... by cavebear42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Population - 32,805,041
      Self Identify Black Canadian - 662,215 ..........

      2.02%

      compair to 12.9% in the US

      just for the record

    4. Re:Walk this way... by ikkonoishi · · Score: 4, Funny

      So 12.9% of Americans identify themselves as Black Canadians?

  8. NAFTA by ikegami · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does NAFTA allow us to say no?

    1. Re:NAFTA by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny
      Does NAFTA allow us to say no?

      I ran the NAFTA agreement through a GOP Decoder Ring(TM) and found it boiled down to: "Make sure the rich stay rich" So it's anyone's guess how they'll translate that.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  9. There's only one option left by PsychicX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We need to rebalance the US and Canadian populations. All the evangelicals, racists, and conservatives go to the US. And all the sane people go to canada. Then, when the Revolution comes, they'll be the first ones up against the wall, and we'll be happy Canadians.

    1. Re:There's only one option left by climb_no_fear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that the sane people don't always fare well when the loonies revolt ...

    2. Re:There's only one option left by Herr_Nightingale · · Score: 3, Funny

      All the evangelicals, racists, and conservatives go to the US. And all the sane people go to canada.

      Done! We're already a step ahead of you, eh.

  10. Nice by nate+nice · · Score: 2, Funny

    Canada reminds me of the videogame company that releases their product later so they don't make the mistakes of their competition and ends up with a superior result! Way to go! Now if you could only get that health care thing worked out.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    1. Re:Nice by synx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having lived in both places, I'd definitely say that Canada has a far superior health care system. Lets just put it this way, if you are in the USA, you are only one major health issue from bankruptcy - even if you are making 6 figures.

      I know you were probably joking, but why let an opportunity to correct a misconception slip by?

    2. Re:Nice by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Informative

      TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch. Canadians have traded the costs of private insurance for the costs of increased taxation, waiting lists, and overall poorer medical care. In the US I may be one cancer diagnosis away from bankruptcy, but at least I won't have to wait weeks or months to start my chemotherapy. If Canada's health care system is so superior, then why are so many Canadians coming to the US for health care?

      Don't listen to me, though. Read a recent Canadian article on the subject: Canadian Health Care In Crisis.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:Nice by ErikZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're in Canada, you're one major health issue away from death.

      I find a great way to not have to pay for expensive treatment, is to make the patient wait for tests. And wait. And wait. Then the patient dies! Problem solved.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    4. Re:Nice by Bobzibub · · Score: 2, Informative

      You forgot that Canada can increase spending from it's regular buget SURPLUSES (What 10 years now?) to increase spending on health care. The US spends more government money on HC than Canada does per capita. Too bad Medicare is *still* going bankrupt eh?

      http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1753
      "per capita health spending in the U.S. is more than twice as high: $4,000 last year, compared with $1,800 in Canada."

      So Canada increases spending on medicare by say C$1Billion....this year.
      http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/hcp.nsf/0/ c4a2808 945556ed085256e63007d87be?OpenDocument

      "The federal government will commit more than C$1 billion ($760 million) toward increased health care spending in fiscal 2004-2005,.."

      Past years too.

      "The government's 2003 budget increased health care spending by C$34.8 billion ($26.4 billion) over five years, and Prime Minister Paul Martin confirmed only a few weeks ago an additional C$2 billion ($1.5 billion) payment to provincial governments to cover rising health care costs, Goodale said in the House of Commons in delivering the government's budget for fiscal 2004-2005. That brings federal cash transfers to provinces and territories for health care and social programs to C$28.1 billion ($21.1 billion) in 2007-2008, he said."

      Sure, we Canucks held back on spending like you folks should have, but at least we have some room to manuver. That Social Security deal is a trial baloon for Medicare's privatization.. That is scary.

      Canadians go to the US for quick and good healthcare, true. That is changing: HC is a priority and we budget to pay for it. Americans might be going to Canada as economic migrants if things continue as they are.

      Cheers,
      -b

    5. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, that is an American piece on Canada. As a Canadian that has worked in both systems, the question isn't even the waits, but the outcomes. Looking at health outcomes, Canada's under funded system actually does marginally better than the grossly bloated system in the US. Somehow, the US governement spends more per capita on healthcare than Canada, yet for that expenditure they only get medicare and medicaid, whereas Canada gets universal coverage. If Canada would boost its per capita expeditures to match those of the US, there wouldn't even be a funding crisis in the system!

      Finally, I think that the article that you linked to demonstrates the main problem in the Canadian system: a lack of man power. You can buy all the MRI's you want, but if you haven't trained sufficient radiologists to read them, or technologists to keep the machines running, then there will still be waiting lists. The governement really has to boost the number of training spots at universities to train the needed staff.

  11. Lesson from Europe by Sanity · · Score: 4, Insightful
    After following the EU software patent debate very closely all I can say is that getting politicians to verbally agree with you is only the first step. When powerful interests are involved, a politicians vote can often differ quite substantially from their stated intentions...

    Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom (and its a PITA).

  12. Some of the text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's the bulk of the article text, before the poor guy gets taken down by the hordes. (Typical Internet copyright violation, eh?)

    Government of Canada Unveils Plans for Copyright Reform

    Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage, the two departments responsible for copyright policy in Canada, this morning released a joint statement on plans for copyright reform. There is an additional FAQ that fleshes out the issues. A bill is expected this spring and the statement spells out where Canada is headed. The key points include:

    1. The government will implement the WIPO Internet treaties. Note that the government now speaks of implementing, rather than formally ratifying, the treaties. They indicate that they will consider ratification after this bill is passed.

    2. The package will include an anti-circumvention provision applied to copyright material. There is no mention of extending the provision to devices (as is the case in the U.S.) and the specific reference to applying the provision to copyright material suggests that the provision will limit its applicability to circumvention to commit copyright infringement. The rights management information is similarly limited to instances to "further or conceal copyright infringement." While no anti-circumvention provision would be better, this suggests that the Canadian provision will feature some real balance.

    Moreover, the FAQ makes clear that "the circumvention of a TPM applied to copyright material will only be illegal if it is carried out with the objective of infringing copyright. Legitimate access, as authorized by the Copyright Act, will not be altered." This is very different from anti-circumvention provisions found in the U.S. However, the FAQ also notes that circumvention for the purposes of private copying will not be permitted, meaning people may find themselves paying for a CD and paying a levy on blank CD yet unable to make the copy of the underlying CD.

    3. The recording industry gets some of their package - a making available right and a full reproduction right for performers.

    4. A "notice and notice" system for ISPs rather than notice and takedown. Canadian ISPs will only be required to notify their subscriber of an infringement claim, not take the content down as is found in the U.S. The ISP will be required to retain subscriber information, however to ensure that it is available should litigation later arise.

    This is a major development as it implements a much fairer system than that found in the U.S. (or even the more draconian notice and termination system that CRIA raised last spring). The FAQ argues that this system is better suited to a P2P world, since notice and takedown simply doesn't work for P2P.

    5. The photographers' copyright issue will also be addressed. It is not entirely clear how the reform will address the commissioning of photographs issue - an exception for private or domestic commissions is contemplated, but this one that really requires the legislative language. No word either on what will happen with the stalled Senate bill on this issue.

    6. As previously reported, the extended license for Internet materials has been shelved for now with a consultation on the issue planned for this year.

    7. The Act will include new provisions to facilitate electronic delivery of materials within schools and libraries. This is viewed as addressing the user side of the equation. It's a start but obviously user rights don't command the same attention as the rights holder groups.

    8. Other major issues for immediate consultation include private copying and broadcasters rights.

    The devil will be in the details but this represents a major shift away from the embarrassingly one-sided Canadian Heritage Standing Committee recommendations issued last May. While that report clearly pushed the agenda forward, the government's response has certainly recognized the need for some balance. Lots more on these issues to come...

    1. Re:Some of the text by NorthDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, the FAQ also notes that circumvention for the purposes of private copying will not be permitted, meaning people may find themselves paying for a CD and paying a levy on blank CD yet unable to make the copy of the underlying CD.

      This is kind of sad. Ok, it may not be a DMCA-like reform we are heading toward, but it still eats away a chunck of my fair-use rights. I mean, now I won't have the right to circumvent DRM-protected files so I can play them on linux? In the future, if they begin to sell DRM-crippled CD's and CD player, I won't have the right to circumvent it's DRM scheme so I can put the music on my iPod (as an example only)? The rest seems to have reach a good balance, but this one I do not like how it sounds.

      So ok, things like DeCSS won't be illegal in itself, but using it to rip my DVDs to my harddrive will so I should rejoice why exactly? Because it is not has bad as in the US? It's not as bad so it is ok? Way to go...

      Sorry for the rant, this just frustrates me a lot.

      --


      I'd rather be sailing...
  13. Why do countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    with the best governments always have the lousiest weather??

  14. Broad Language... by yuriismaster · · Score: 2, Insightful
    In this context, ISP refers to any entity, commercial or otherwise, that provides digital network services to subscribers or clients.


    I think we'll see many mp3z.ca type sites popping up. When canada opens up decent-sized hosting, someone's going to abuse it from afar (outside of Canada's jurisdiction). A Japanese pirater will use Canada's hosting (which will probably grow due to the lax liability laws) to serve to American consumers. The pirate network will never die, it seems...
  15. Immigration... by alexandreracine · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is the website... :)

    http://www.cic.gc.ca/

    --
    No sig for now.
  16. Canada ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... The *new* Land of the Free. :-)

  17. Mod chips by PxM · · Score: 3, Informative

    "the circumvention of a TPM applied to copyright material will only be illegal if it is carried out with the objective of infringing copyright. Legitimate access, as authorized by the Copyright Act, will not be altered."

    That sounds like it will allow the creation and sale of mod chips as long as they are used legally. Though, it doesn't allow private copying which means that cracking iTunes for personal use is still not legal.

    --
    Want a free iPod?
    Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
    Wired article as proof

    1. Re:Mod chips by Ahnteis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Howso? From what you posted, cracking iTunes would only be illegal if you distributed the files after cracking them.

      If you cracked them for your own use, how are you infringing COPYRIGHT?

  18. Re:So When Piracy Causes The End Of Freedom.... by incom · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "...a psycho guns down four cops, and we say it was because of a nonexistent grow-op."
    It's sickening how the RCMP tried to leverage this event to their financial benefit. Sort of like how GWB had those 9/11 election ads, /vomits...
    --
    True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
  19. Re:I AM by LegendOfLink · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh, you're the government?

    Could you kinda like, um, stop sucking? I'll wave a flag or whatever, maybe even say something nice about the President, but please, stop sucking.

  20. Re:It's never too late... by PyWiz · · Score: 3, Funny

    You modded down my anti-Canadian comment? Terrorist.

    --
    -py
  21. Re:So When Piracy Causes The End Of Freedom.... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "They were gunned down in cold blood while investigating a grow op..."

    Yeah, a grow op of 20 plants on the property of a man with nearly a dozen charges of assault, uttering threats, threatening a police officer, firing a gun within city limits, driving infractions, and who was known to be less than stable. He'd sworn, on several occaisions, to kill people who angered him. The guy was a nut job, and in spite of all this, he had no problems buying all the guns he wanted from the government. Blaming this on weed is like blaming World War II on the German sausages causing indigestion.

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
  22. Re:Huh... by Arysh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    They tried that once, in 1812. Guess who won? ;)

    But back on topic, since I'm Canadian myself, it's always nice to see my country not mimic our southern neighbour. Canada and the US are too similar already.

    --
    "A signature always reveals a man's character - and sometimes even his name" - Evan Esar (1899-1995)
  23. I don't believe it! by Safety+Cap · · Score: 5, Funny

    First "USA - North" say they won't participate in our beloved Star Wars, and now they refuse to embrace our holy copyright law?!

    I hope they know what the price of defiance is, and I think I speak for the rest of Jebusland when I say, "Let's roll!"

    I expect your people will greet us with Flowers and Candies, too.

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:I don't believe it! by Infinityis · · Score: 3, Funny

      A reading of the Holy Act of Digital Millenium Copyrights

      Then did he raise on high the Holy Act of Digital Millenium Copyrights, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst oppress thine constituents to tiny mindless peoples, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the .mp3s and .wavs and .wmvs and iTunes... Now did the Lord say, "First thou download the Holy DMCA encrypted media. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then playest thou the Holy DMCA protected media in the direction of thine purchaser, who, being mindless in my sight, shall enjoy it."

    2. Re:I don't believe it! by prezninja · · Score: 2, Funny

      My friend, there is a reason all of our major population centers are near the U.S. border: We've all been waiting! Bring it on!

    3. Re:I don't believe it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure, it would be over in 5 minutes. Sheesh, the PM would probably call up before you crossed the border and politely offer to surrender. It would be the right thing to do, given that we would all agree Canada would lose anyway. Much of the public would probably agree with the approach. Much less confrontational.

      But within a few months, inevitably, it would get really cold. Then, natural gas and oil pipelines supplying a large fraction of U.S. energy demand would mysteriously develop "technical difficulties" (Canada is the country from which the U.S. imports the most crude oil -- no, it isn't Saudi Arabia). Likewise for hydroelectric plants supplying much of the electrical power to New England from Quebec. In total, Canada supplies ~17% of U.S. energy demand. We would be very sorry if problems developed. Perhaps if you had not invaded us we could have kept that stuff running better for you?

      And then, just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, late at night, the secret zamboni army would suddenly roll out of all the local rinks, and cover the roads with a glare of ice. Supply lines? Forget it. Even when we are trying to keep the roads open they sometimes get cut off. Meanwhile, soldiers on ice skates and snowmobiles would glide across the terrain at astonishing speeds while your vehicles are stuck in the snow. With their bellies warm with maple syrop and their keen hockey and curling skills applied to the delivery of all manner of explosive devices, nowhere would be safe for your troops anywhere north of the freezing line. Well, okay, until spring, then there could be some challenges.

      Now, is the mere possibility of an intercontinental missile that it might be possible to shoot down if that very expensive system ever works properly *really* worth that much trouble? Let's be friends, and we'll keep sending you all that oil and other energy you like so much. We only ask fair market price, and our dollars are still cheaper, eh?

      And if you do get that thing running, just let the missiles heading for Canada land here. Chances are pretty good they won't hit anything vital.

  24. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This, coming from someone whose entire sig is an attempt to scam people. Nice.

  25. Not really by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Plain and simple, while these ppl are trying to change the law to their advantage, it is politicians who are doing so. ppl like Utah's senator, Hatch. Many do it not because it is good for America, but because they are gaining personally. That is bad politics.

    In other cases, Politicians will do something as a cause and try to make it look like they are doing the right thing, when in reality they know it is wrong, but simply wish to have something for the election.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Not Really by nate+nice · · Score: 2, Funny

      "You do have an emergency situation bank account right?"

      I always keep a few bucks in a jar near my bed for when I run out of chips and soda!

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    2. Re:Not really by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Many do it not because it is good for America, but because they are gaining personally.
      To make things far worse the movie studios blatently do things that look a lot like fraud to avoid tax (eg. "Forrest Gump" lost money on paper despite huge ticket sales and not costing a great deal to make) and doing a great deal offshore (helps my country when they film stuff set in Sth California here, but it doesn't help you guys. So they get disproportionate representation without much taxation to impede those that do pay tax with draconian laws, and don't contribute much to the economy either - when that sort of stuff happens in a country without a US style lobby system people get suspicious and start looking to see if there is illegal bribery going on.

      Come to my country. You can stay forever if you give enough money to the correct political party. Bribery really sucks, no matter what you call it.

  26. Re:Stop sending us mad cattle. by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 2, Funny

    No kidding. Next time we get some American beef with mad cow in it, we're SO invading.

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
  27. Re:So When Piracy Causes The End Of Freedom.... by DeathFlame · · Score: 4, Informative

    Plus they were there because of a stolen vehicle, not because of the grow op.

  28. wow by Jailbrekr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    However, the FAQ also notes that circumvention for the purposes of private copying will not be permitted, meaning people may find themselves paying for a CD and paying a levy on blank CD yet unable to make the copy of the underlying CD.

    If I buy a CD, I have every right to make a backup copy of that. Its called fair use. If I have to circumvent security to exercise my rights as a citizen and consumer, then I am circumventing a system which is trying to PREVENT me from exercising my rights. So what takes precendence? Fair use or DRM, which will take a higher precedence in a Canadian Court of law?

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    1. Re:wow by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I buy a CD, I have every right to make a backup copy of that. Its called fair use.

      In the USA,"Fair Use" is not a right.
      It is defense against prosecution.
      It is also very nebulously defined, on purpose to make it applicable to future situations without requiring amendment, but that also means the application is not clear cut, generally relying on case law to determine specifics.

      Here is the section of US copyright law that defines fair use:

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00 000107----000-.html

  29. Re:So When Piracy Causes The End Of Freedom.... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry, I missed that. I forgot why they had been called out there. The guy investigating about the vehicle had been told by the psycho that "if he came back with cops, he'd kill them." The guy came back with cops. He killed them. He was an honest psycho.

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
  30. Canadian Bacon by theantix · · Score: 3, Funny

    That movie was *way* to far fetched. I mean, what are the odds that a US President would invade some foreign country they know next-to-nothing about on completely made up "evidence", just to increase the popularity of the President? Seriously people, get a grip on reality.

    --
    501 Not Implemented
  31. Re:I AM by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny


    Hey. I'm not a lumberjack, or a fur trader.

    And I don't live in an igloo, or eat blubber, or own a dogsled.

    And I don't know Jimmy, Sally or Suzy from Canada, although I'm certain they're really, really nice.

    I have a Prime Minister, not a President.

    I speak English and French, NOT American. and I pronounce it 'ABOUT', NOT 'A BOOT'.

    I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack. I believe in peace keeping, NOT policing. DIVERSITY, NOT assimilation, AND THAT THE BEAVER IS A TRULY PROUD AND NOBLE ANIMAL.

    A TOQUE IS A HAT, A CHESTERFIELD IS A COUCH, AND IT IS PRONOUCED 'ZED' NOT 'ZEE', 'ZED'!!!

    CANADA IS THE SECOND LARGEST LANDMASS! THE FIRST NATION OF HOCKEY! AND THE BEST PART OF NORTH AMERICA!

    MY NAME IS JOE!! AND I AM CANADIAN!!!!!!!!

    Thank you.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  32. Re:Stop sending us mad cattle. by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, sadly, yes, you got two cows from us. We've gotten six from you. Of course, when we raise hell, what happens? The Elephant to the south doesn't notice, or care.

    As for the by-products control, the thing was, seven years ago Canada banned using animal by-products as animal feed. The cows that the States got were seven years old, and had been raised for the first few months of their life on the LAST few months of animal by-product feed process. These were the LAST possible cows who could have gotten Mad Cow from the feed, and they did, and we gave them to you guys. One in a million shot, doctor... one in a million.

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
  33. No to DMCA? WTF? by mikers · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can record companies (Canadian equiv. of [MPRI]{2}AA) sue p2p users sharing music and movies?

    Currently no. Once this act is passed, yes they can. The ISP is obligated to maintain sufficent records to identify the subscriber for a period of time.

    Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
    Upon receipt of a notice, ISPs would also be required to keep a record of relevant information for a specified time. Rights holders would have the legal means to compel ISPs to comply with the regime.

    AND
    (FAQ)
    This will clarify that the unauthorized posting or the peer-to-peer file-sharing of material on the Internet will constitute an infringement of copyright.

    Can users copy records/movies for private use?

    Currently yes. After this act is passed, yes BUT users are not allowed to legally bypass any restrictions (DRM) in order to do so. That becomes illegal.

    Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
    The Act's private copying regime provides for an exception to copyright that permits the making of a copy of a sound recording for private use

    BUT... not everything is good: (from FAQ)
    The bill will also contain legal protections for technological protection measures (encryptions, password requirements) and rights management systems containing information for the purpose of tracking uses of works. The removal of or tampering with such measures for the purpose of infringing copyright will itself constitute an infringement of copyright.

    What this looks like is basically opening the door to lawsuits for record companies, making file sharing illegal and closing the door on consumers being able to turn off DRM to make a copy of a CD or movie for themselves.

    How is this not DMCA?

    Je n'ai comprend pas.

    1. Re:No to DMCA? WTF? by crazy_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Here's the key:

      The removal of or tampering with such measures for the purpose of infringing copyright will itself constitute an infringement of copyright.

      You can't get charged just for bypassing DRM. That can only happen if you do so for the purpose of infringing copyright. i.e. copying in a manner that is not fairuse. (contrary to what poster above believes)

    2. Re:No to DMCA? WTF? by Drakonian · · Score: 2, Informative
      Just to clarify my source, from the FAQ:

      Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    3. Re:No to DMCA? WTF? by Drakonian · · Score: 2, Informative
      And the purpose of a notice and notice system is to directly target P2P. From the FAQ:

      Why is the government not instituting a "notice and takedown" regime for ISPs (as other countries have done)?

      A "notice and takedown" regime typically requires an ISP to block access to material upon receipt of a notice from a rights holder that alleges such material to be infringing. The obligation to block access lies with the ISP whose facilities are being used to host the allegedly infringing material. Under Canadian law, the courts already have the ability to order the takedown of infringing material in appropriate cases. The bill will maintain this standard in accordance with Charter of Rights considerations. A drawback of "notice and takedown"is that it typically applies only to materials posted on an ISP's facilities; it cannot cover peer-to-peer file sharing, arguably the most prevalent source of infringing material, since the files are actually located in the computers of the persons engaged in sharing. The proposed "notice and notice" regime will address peer-to-peer file sharing.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    4. Re:No to DMCA? WTF? by Queer+Boy · · Score: 2, Funny
      Je n'ai comprend pas.

      Je ne comprends pas, indeed.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
  34. Good work... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now I guess I need to start taking back all of those bad things I said about Canada.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  35. Re:Huh... by Fox_1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ummmm, that's because technically we were British at that point.

    --
    The rock, the vulture, and the chain
  36. Not as awesome as it seems by Rumor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Despite the cheery headline, there are still some lamentable changes being proposed. Chiefly, protection for TPMs (Technological Protections Measures, or DRM) in the same vein as the DMCA are being sought, because, you know, they worked so well in chilling innovation and fostering anti-competitive practices in the USA. Reverse-engineering and circumvention of protection measures will be illegal, unless not for the purpose of facilitating infringement, but that's the kind of purpose that can only be determined after a lengthy trial...

    And the "notice and takedown" provison is being avoided, but a "notice and notice" provision is being sought, which is slightly less problematic (it does not require immediate removal of the allegedly infringing material) but there are still provisions being sought that require an ISP to facilitate the process of finding and suing potential infringers.

    The gov't clearly wants to restrict the definition of "publicly available" material on the internet, and expand the licensing agreement between educational institutions and content providers (read: more money flows from students to copyright holders). If you are a private individual and not a student, there is to date no mention of how you might legally copy information available on the internet.

    And finally, there is no indication yet on the direction the gov't wants to go with our oft-cherised "private copying" right, which currently may or may not apply to downloading music onto your computer. (No, it is not clearly legal in Canada, despite what newspapers and other slashdot posters say. It's just very hard to identify and sue infringers.)

    So, there is all that to consider.

  37. Re:Burning the Whitehouse by Phrogman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Are you refering to the canadians burning the white house? Isnt that pretty hotly contested? Canadians love to claim they burned the whitehouse down but I think the brits actually did it?"

    We *were* Brits at that point so its a moot point. We were a colony of the British Empire until 1867 and 1947(?) in the case of the province of Newfoundland). We are still a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and we have many examples of our British heritage. The Queen of England is still our Queen for instance (when I swore my oath upon joining the Canadian Forces in '86, it was to "The Queen and all her heirs and successors in perpetuity" for instance. In reality she has no effective political power at all, but we send her a beaver pelt every year).

    So when Canadians say we burnt the Whitehouse, it was in fact British Troops, but they had come south from Canada. We were all British back then, so we can claim it as part of our heritage. Besides you guys got a snazzy white paint job out of the deal and it probablly looks better as a result. Now if you could only convince Big Business to put a better choice in the Oval Office... :)

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  38. Bad Example by adiposity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, Hatch is both. He owns and collects royalties on a catalog of songs he's written. He just happens to be in a unique position to (theoretically) help himself out by enforcing copyright.

    -Dan

    1. Re:Bad Example by uberdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That puts him into a potential conflict of interest situation. He should be excluded from making policy on copyright legislation.

    2. Re:Bad Example by black+mariah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anyone that's ever written anything is in a position to benefit, therefore everyone should be excluded.

      In other words, STFU.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    3. Re:Bad Example by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're saying that if i write even a song i'll have profits like Sting? Oh come on, despite a quote from one of his songs in my sig, i wouldn't say that.

      Most of us won't get any serious profit from our writing, but he does.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  39. Re:So When Piracy Causes The End Of Freedom.... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blaming this on weed is like blaming World War II on the German sausages causing indigestion.

    Not really. Think about it.

    Scenario 1: Pot is legal. You grow pot. You sell pot. You smoke pot. You pay your taxes and uphold the law. The cops don't bother you.
    Would you shoot a cop?

    Scenario 2: Pot is illegal. If you are caught selling it, you get a large fine and possibly some jail time. If you are caught using it, you get a small fine. You grow pot. You sell pot. You smoke pot. Cops have been tipped off and are coming for you, and if you get caught you face a $20,000 fine up to a year in jail.
    Would you shoot a cop?

    Scenario 3: Pot is illegal. If you are caught selling it, you go to jail for 20 years. If you are caught using it, you are sent to jail for 3 years. You grow pot. You sell pot. You smoke pot. Cops have been tipped off and are coming for you, and if you get caught you go away for the rest of your life.
    Would you shoot a cop?

    It appears, because of this event, that they will be shelving legistlation to reduce the penalties involved in marijuana. Does anyone else think this is really stupid, or is it just me?

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  40. Re:I AM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If your patriotism is how you measure your self worth, then you have problems.

  41. Re:So When Piracy Causes The End Of Freedom.... by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It wasn't a 'grow op'. It was twenty plants. Hell, a buddy of mine had fifteen plants, and his just got confiscated, and he got a month in jail and some community service because he didn't "sell" it, he just gave it to his buddies. In my town, my old roomate had a pot plant in his living room. His reason? "If I leave it outside, the cops take it." Twenty plants in northern Alberta is still pretty much a personal stash. This isn't a matter of a guy being afraid of going to jail and shooting cops, this is a matter of a guy who LIKED to shoot people, shooting cops.

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
  42. Re:I AM by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 2, Funny

    "...AND IT IS PRONOUCED 'ZED' NOT 'ZEE', 'ZED'!!!"

    You know my great-uncle?!?
    How about his twin brother ZEB?

    --
    "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
  43. Re:I want to be a Canadian... by grub · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but my english is awful and my french is even worse...

    You could be our next Prime Minister.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  44. Re:So When Piracy Causes The End Of Freedom.... by yamla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Right, but the cops weren't there because of the pot. Changing the marijuana legislation as a result of this makes as much sense as invading Egypt because of this.

    --

    Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
  45. Re:The grass is always greener on the other side by KillerBob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... Ernst Zundel was deported after about 30 years' worth of extradition requests from Germany, where he was wanted for publishing documents that denied the holocaust.

    Now, the last thing I want to do is give somebody a reason to invoke Godwin's law, but for crying out quietly, 30 years' worth of extradition requests and we only now get rid of the jackass?

    Free Speech (tm) exists in Canada, and I have *never* had cause to believe that we're more draconian than anybody else. For one thing, we never produced a Joe McCarthy....

    --
    If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
  46. ISPs by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A"notice and notice" regime in relation to the hosting and file sharing activities of an ISP's subscribers would be provided for. That is, when an ISP receives notice from a rights holder that one of its subscribers is allegedly hosting or sharing infringing material, the ISP would be required to forward the notice to the subscriber. Blocking access to such material would be required only when ordered by a court. Upon receipt of a notice, ISPs would also be required to keep a record of relevant information for a specified time. Rights holders would have the legal means to compel ISPs to comply with the regime. The Government would have the power to prescribe the form that must be used in giving notices and to set fees that may be required to be paid by rights holders to ISPs for processing such notices.

    I think this is about as fair a system as you can get. ISPs are protected as carriers of information. Rightsholders are able to proceed with civil actions, but the removal of information requires the finding of a court. And everyone is protected (to some extent) from overzealous rightsholders by the possibility of a "processing fee" to compensate ISPs for their trouble.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  47. Re:It's never too late... by Bullet-Dodger · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a Canadian I find that very offensive! We're freedom hating socialists and don't you forget it!

  48. Interesting side effect. by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If it can be argued that the person you got the DVD movie you've downloaded from was in Canada, there's nobody to sue in the chain of DMCA violations, only in the copying of copyrighted content violations. The Canadian user could DeCSS the content for you.

    What I'm curious about now is whether this will lead to an identifier (maybe another DVD region?), for Canada, in the next format, but such that ripped content could be identified.

  49. That's very nice for Canadians, BUT... by sytxr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    as good as this for Canada, I'd do better lobbying my own countries' politicans for reasonable copyright and against new DMCA like "copyright police state" laws which the enterntainment is lobbying for, than posting on and reading /. where most people share a more reasonable stance on the subject anyway (even if the entertainment industrie's "We're the good guys and they're the bad guys" - Propaganda did take its toll among the /. population) .

    They're not. Not the big labels at least. http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/albini .html ; they're mostly bureaucrat-, lobbyist-, marketing- and lawyer-leeches that try to port and impose an inefficient and obsolete distribution system to the information age and restrict new technology and misemploy them to gain even more control, regardless of the damage to society it would cause. Think what could happen a tcpa/palladium (tcg/ngscb) like control technology gets mandated into every computer to enforce copyrights and DRM and then a not-perfectly-good government decides to increasingly use it for suveillance, censorship and control purposes.

  50. MOD PARENT UP by Excen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He may be illiterate and a self-titled jerk, but he does have a point. Which senators sponsor legislation like the DMCA come from? They happen to be from areas of the country that want to ban violent video games, make schools more like prisons than learning institutions, and let people sue pencil makers for poking themselves in their stupid, stupid eyes.

    --
    "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
  51. Oh Canada! by hotspotbloc · · Score: 3, Funny
    Old joke: "If North America was in prison the US would our bitch since we're bigger and on top!"

    Nice to see that Canada once again has decided not be the US' bitch.

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
  52. Re:So I pay a levy to make a copy, but I can't... by Yaztromo · · Score: 2, Informative
    So does this mean that all the protected CD's we get from the US we can now be sued for ripping? How does this make sense?

    It makes perfect sense, vis:

    Moreover, the FAQ makes clear that "the circumvention of a TPM applied to copyright material will only be illegal if it is carried out with the objective of infringing copyright.

    The concept of "Private Copying" (which is the term used in Canadian Copyright Act C-42) is not a copyright infringement. What you want to look at is Part VIII, ss 80, namely:

    80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

    (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

    (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

    (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

    onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

    Limitation

    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

    (a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

    (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

    (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

    (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

    As such, if you defeat a copyright protection mechanism for the purpose of making a private copy, you'll be okay, as that copy won't be an infringing copy.

    (For the record, IANAL -- I'm just a guy who has read over the Copyright Act on numerous occasions :) ).

    Yaz.

  53. But I can't make copys of my CD's/DVD's??? by desikage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As much as this _sounds_ good, they're still not giving me what I want:

    First they say:
    That is, the circumvention of a TPM applied to copyright material will only be illegal if it is carried out with the objective of infringing copyright.

    Then they go on to say:
    Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.

    I have a cottage, why can't I have a copy of the DVD's I own at my cottage and a copy at my house? Why should I pay twice for this privilege or lug around DVD's all the time?

    Same with CD's when they get copy-protection. Does this mean I will not be able to make copys of my CD's?? The current life-span of a CD in my car is less than a year, am I expected to re-buy this simply because I'm not allowed to make personal copys?

    It's bullshit.

    --
    Not all dogs drink Coke.
  54. Re:So When Piracy Causes The End Of Freedom.... by Tripster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The whole grow op angle bugged me from the getgo, especially when it was disclosed the original reason the cops were there was nothing to do with the pot, they just discovered that during the search for stolen property that had taken them there.

    Of course the RCMP are playing up the pot as much as possible since it is in their vested interest for the current laws to remain and/or tougher laws to be on the books. They were among the first to put up a stink when the government said it was looking to lessen charges involving weed.

    All for a plant that some guy in the 20's didn't really like and he used a bunch of false information to make it illegal. Reefer Madness anyone?

    It is a plant! I cannot believe we as a species are so holier than thou that we think we can declare entire plant species as "illegal". Pathetic waste of tax monies enforcing it and it amounts to little but a make work project for those in society who believe they have the right to dictate what others can and cannot do to their bodies.

    Nobody has overdosed and died from smoking weed, meanwhile thousands die every year from alcohol poisoning, go figure.

  55. And soon... by shmlco · · Score: 5, Insightful
    you are only one major health issue from bankruptcy

    Even bankruptcy won't help, as Congress is about to vote April 6th on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

    Aptly named, the act "protects" banks and lenders from those nasty middle-class comsumers who lose their jobs, whose families break up, and who suffer unforeseen medical emergencies.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  56. Blame Clinton! by superdude72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I usually support Democrats, but this is one area where Clinton's attempting to have his cake and eat it too led to an incredibly bad law.

    Clinton accepted that most of the good manufacturing jobs would move overseas. America's strength, as he saw it, was in intellectual property. Therefore, a vote to strenghten holders of copyrights was in America's interest, right?

    Oops.

    Signing this was one of his biggest blunders after his support for deregulating radio and welfare reform.

  57. Would anyone notice? by Jetson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Go us! Now the question on everybody's mind up here is: with our refusal to put our official support behind the missile defense program and now this, how long before the border closes up completely?

    The border is already effectively closed as far as I'm concerned. The USA has REPEATEDLY lost their battles over softwood tariffs and beef import restrictions and yet the politicians down there are still blocking imports by simply throwing up new laws/rules that they *know* will eventually be struck down again. NAFTA is a complete failure from the Canadian perspective as the "free flow of goods and services" is apparently only a one-way deal.

    There is a growing sentiment up here that we should no longer offer the USA preferential access to our natural resources. If you don't want our lumber or our beef, why should we be paying high electric rates to subsidise California? Why should we be shipping our fresh water south by the truckload?

    I (and many other Canadians) have stopped going to the USA on vacation. I now give my tourist dollars to countries in Asia, Europe and elsewhere.

    1. Re:Would anyone notice? by gnuman99 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why should we be shipping our fresh water south by the truckload?

      Because, thank the proverbian god, the Conservatives got kicked out before they sold Canada's water by river/channel-full. Look at the James Bay crap. Then earlier in the 60s there was the NAWAPA proposal.

      Even now, G.W.B. wants to buy Canada's water in bullk. http://greatlakesdirectory.org/zarticles/101702_gr eat_lakes3.htm.

      In NAFTA, it states that bulk water is not covered. BUT if Canada starts selling bulk water, we cannot stop (under NAFTA). That's why a company selling bulk water to Middle East (oil to us, water to them) got shut down by the government.

      Let's hope that the current brand of Convatives (political party of canada) do not ever get a majority. They might just sell our most important asset. Brian Mulroney sure tried.

    2. Re:Would anyone notice? by Heretik · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Let's hope that the current brand of Convatives (political party of canada) do not ever get a majority.


      I used to think the conservatives would probably screw everything up pretty bad. Then I moved to Australia for a year.

      Now I know the conservatives will screw everything up really bad. The conservative equivalent party here has completely destroyed the country.

      Everything that has been privatised got far worse because of it, you have to pay for everything, but.. they still get taxed to hell. The private health care company (singular, not plural, for the record) is actively screwing me out of twice the money they should have taken, and getting my money back is proving almost impossible.

      The government is completely fucking the people out of all their money and giving them nothing for it, it's amazing. Living in Canada is so so much better. (Disclaimer: government wise. The people and everything here are great. Government != people)

      Want to vote conservative? Move to the states and stop trying to destroy our country, thanks.
  58. Free speech by totoanihilation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, weather permitting, I would have to say the grass _does_ seem greener on our side of the fence.

    An example of free speech: we don't get called unpatriotic and/or labelled a terrorist (and thus have almost all personal rights revoked) for saying that our political leader is a dickhead. I would even dare say that it's a necessity to question the competence of our leaders, otherwise they would get away with worse stuff than they do now.

    1. Re:Free speech by cgenman · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would even dare say that it's a necessity to question the competence of our leaders

      I don't think there is any question about the competence of our leaders.

      That's like questioning if ice is hot or Gigli was a good movie.

  59. English Parliament is great... by katharsis83 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually I think he has a point there. Have you ever watched Tony Blaire be cross-examined on the floor of the House of Lords? I may dislike his policies, but the guy has amazing oratory skills - he defends his policies and ideas with clarity and coherence. It adds to the public discourse on complex issues. This kind of accountability of the Executive leads to a cleaner and more transparent government.

    I *WANT* to see all future US Presidents have to defend themselves in front of the US Senate.

    I *WANT* to see GW Bush have to defend himself to cross-examination by opposition parties on the floor of the Senate.

    So yeah, I do think there's something the US can learn from British Parliament-style government.

    1. Re:English Parliament is great... by arkhan_jg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just for future reference, Tony Blair has to defend himself on the floor of the House of Commons, the elected house of MP's. He has a half hour every week where he answers pre-submitted questions from all parties. (The commons is equivalent to the US house of representatives, the Lords is an appointed 2nd house that can delay legislation but not stop it)

      Generally, a questioner can ask a supplementary question. The leader of the opposition (largest party not in power) gets 3 or 4 supplementary questions after his first, which are not scripted.

      The whole thing is televised, or available online as video and transcript here

      I have to admit, it's one of the best bits of British democracy, and the US would benefit from introducing it. Some of the questions are just evil, and the PM has to work hard at it. PM questions can make or break a politicians career.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  60. Re:Huh... by sparks · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...what else can we boast about?

    Progressive, tolerant society?

    High standard of living?

    Excellent international reputation - a beacon of peace?

    Beautiful Canadian women?

    Amazing landscape?

    Good job opportunites?

  61. Not bad politics - Politics are bad by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This isn't really bad politics (at least as they are today). This actually great politics. Just happens to be bad for the country (and its people).

    Unfortunatly, good politics and what is good for the people seldom intersect and politicians of course will go with good politics almost everytime.

    --
    "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
  62. Analgesic, not a headache! by werdna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It even avoided the U.S. "notice and takedown system" that has caused a big headache for U.S. ISPs. A good summary is available from Canadian law professor Michael Geist.

    ISP's did not consider the notice and takedown system a headache -- they negotiated for the provisions as a condition of their patronage of the bill!

    The reason is simple: ISPs NEVER have to be liable for infringement of its users. A service provider is not responsible for certain user infringements unless and until it receives notice. Then, it is absolutely free of liability (including liability to the user for wrongful takedown) if it takes down the noticed content.

    I'm not saying its a good thing, mind you. I'm saying that ISPs bargained for and like these provisions.

  63. Re:ZED? by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course, turning that around, we have a 3-syllable "W"

  64. Re:Huh... by BallyHigh · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obnoxious as sh*t?

  65. Re:Read the fine print by Obstin8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Fucking Yanks".

    That's what Canadians instinctively think when they hear comments such as yours. "Banana Republic, Guam, Puerto Rico". Oh, how we drool at the thought of being associated with these stellar examples of democratization, liberty and equality that the U.S. has produced.

    You walk your walk and talk your talk now while you have a bit of bounce in your step. Do you really think Canada - or the world - exists purely to satisfy the needs of the U.S? Do you think you'll just invade countries and plunder what you what? Are you really that arrogant? Do you think a pendulum only swings one way? Or are you just assuming an American {New World Order | Manifest Desitiny | Reich} lasting a thousand years?

    You belittle Canada's not insignificant contributions to operations in Afghanistan. (You even bombed our fucking soldiers!) You glibly predict the separation and 'assimilation' of one of the worlds leading democracies. You're just gonna 'take' our water whenever you decide you need it.

    "Fucking Yanks".

    No surprise at that sentiment. Man, I grew up adoring your country. Now I think that you're just pissing it away - and even worse - no one seems to give a shit. Keep it up with the hubris. I'm sure it will go a long way in appeasing the world that 'Aw, shucks. We're a peaceful, God-fearing country. We just needed a lttle [insert commodity here] is all'.

  66. Re:Actually... by symbolic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is bad politics.

    No, it's GREAT politics. It's very POOR leadership. Politics is about selling your soul to the highest bidder. Leadership is about doing the right thing, even though your "friends" with the deep pockets might not like it. We many great politicians in this country, but very few leaders.

  67. Re:ZED? by renehollan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    When taking my drivers' eye test in Washington State, I had to read a series of letters and numbers.

    Almost failed when I recited the last character as "Zed".

    Because I came with an out-of-country license, I had to take a road test. Inspector almost freaked when I downshifted going down a long, steep hill, instead of riding the brake. He got really angry when I parked beyond a fire hydrant when asked to "turn left and park at the corner" -- he wanted me to make a three point turn around the corner next and figured that parking beyond the hydrant (instead of illegally in front of it) would make that difficult. What's an extra 20 feet in reverse? I passed, of course, but I think he thought me a smart ass.

    --
    You could've hired me.